Yes because to be fair. John only reports what Sherlock DOES!
It's not like John is taking on the case load.

aWorldlyPhilosopher wrote:

First...I would like to say I have really enjoyed reading the many brilliant theories on this forum, and the respectful, intelligent way in which they are discussed. I finally couldn't resist any longer, and registered to join the conversation.

Now, to my theory: it all started before we realized it did. In all the previous episodes, the important clues are given to us very early in the episode, so that we might catch a few hints along the way, and all of them upon re-watching. Moftiss knew we would all be focused on how SH survived the fall, and wanted to give us the clues without making it obvious on the second viewing. So like good magicians, they left clues where we weren't looking: the previous episode.

I quite agree that the whole story can only be gleaned from, well, the whole story.  That is, while I agree we have to go back, IMO, we have to go all the way back to Episode 1.  It seems to me the only way to make sense of this is to consider the 6 episodes as a sort of very long movie, with the unfortunately tedious Ep 2 seeming to offer little help. 

And, I think we might want to consider the American film of the early 1970s, The Sting.  The name refers to the plot to con a gangster - but the joke was on the audience who were also "stung" and conning the audience became part of film/TV culture.  Some things in films and TV are for the benefit of other characters, some are just random errors or coincidences in the production process and don't mean anything, some are meant for the viewers.   Figuring out which is which is the big challenge.

SH's out of character clue that "everyone has missed": SH calling Mycroft and asking for help in Hounds.

This is a very nice catch, in fact, the whole episode seemed out of sync.  What if we go back to Belgravia?  At the end of the episode, it seems as if Sherlock has been completely manipulated by the mere sight of a nude woman.  Of course, in Ep1, he did say "Genius needs an audience."  He also showed how vulnerable he was to approval or admiration through his early interactions with John ("What do most people who know you say?"  "Piss off." - "I'm just saying it's all, alright.")   But then we understand that Sherlock was detached enough to take her pulse, even while seemingly naive about her meaning.  It was when she mentioned Moriarty (who I am assuming told her to taunt them, esp Sherlock after she had won) that we see his rage.  Nicely done by Cumberbatch as everything is, and now we have two brothers, both finally "on the same side" as Mycroft suggests they should be in Ep 1.  So - they will destroy Moriarty. 

Now, who's smartest?  Not Mycroft though he seems brilliant in the same manner, and as soon as they send The Woman on her way, Sherlock hatches a plan, which they perfect.  The other thing we learn in Baskervill is: Sherlock is willing to use John, to hurt him in fact, to serve what he believes is a worthy end.   

It seems to me that it's important to keep in mind that they have to let Moriarty "lead" while they are actually manuipulating events.  They have to make Moriarty think he can win. 

Why did Sherlock call Mycroft?  And, why did Lestraud show up at Baskerville? 

1. When speaking to Major Barrymore, SH says: "You're to give me 24 hours. It's what I've [pause] negotiated."

Interesting that we all know he called Mycroft who has the influence to get it done, but Sherlock says he negotiated.  Maybe the pause is about him changing the word mid-sentence.  Maybe he stopped himself from saying "arranged."   Or even "ordered."
 

besleybean wrote:

Sherlock called Mycroft to pull strings, so that Sherlock could ger back into Baskerville.
Mycroft sent Lestrade to keep an eye on  Sherlock.

This was my thought as well.